Sunil Gaur JUDGMENT
Sunil Gaur, J.
1. The Railway Tribunal vide impugned order of 19th November, 2015 has dismissed appellants' claim petition by holding that the death of deceased was not on account of any accidental fall from the train and would not be covered within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 as the train had already started moving after its scheduled stoppage, when the deceased ran after moving train and had a fatal fall in the process.
2. Impugned order holds that the case of appellants comes within the Proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 to deny compensation to appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has relied upon two decisions of this Court in Jamirul Nisha and Anr. v. Union of India, MANU/DE/0391/2008 : 2009 ACJ 1393 and in Bimla Devi & Anr. v. Union of India, MANU/DE/0153/2014 to hold that fall from an overcrowded compartment of a train would not come within the definition of accidental fall from the train as the death of the passenger in the said case was not result of any untoward accident.
3. The manner in which the accident in question took place is spelt out in opening paragraphs of impugned order and needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that the deceased while trying to board an overcrowded compartment of the train fell down on the railways tracks under the platform and sustained injuries, which proved fatal.
4. The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for appellants is on the ground that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was trying to board a compartment of the train, which was no doubt crowded, but while doing so, he had accidentally fallen and so, it is a case of accidental fall from the train which is covered by Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is submitted by appellant's counsel that the decision in Jamirul Nisha (supra) is not applicable to the facts of instant case because evidence of a co-passenger was found to be contradictory regarding the manner of accident, whereas it is not so in the instant case.
5. It is submitted that reliance placed upon the decision in Bimla Devi (supra) by learned Tribunal is totally misplaced as deceased in the said case had tried to get down from the running train at an unauthorized stop, whereas it is not so in the instant case. Thus, it is submitted that impugned order deserves to be set aside and appellants' claim petition ought to be allowed. In support of above submissions, reliance is placed upon decisions in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, MANU/SC/7608/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and Others v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0656/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 443.
6. On the contrary, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the deceased had not fallen from the train, but had died due to foolishly trying to board an overcrowded compartment of a moving train and in that process, the deceased had fallen down and had sustained fatal injuries. It is pointed out that Jamirul Nisha (supra) was a case where the victim/deceased had accidently fallen from the train whereas in the instant case, the deceased had died while trying to board the train.
7. It is submitted that if a passenge........